Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flyboy1
No.
The grenade launcher part is just one of the forgotten characteristics that "identify" an assault weapon that is overlooked. However it still unfortunately characterizes it as "illegal."
See stolen googlefu doc. below:
In 1994, the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 was passed. This law banned rifles that had detachable magazines and two or more of the following characteristics:
A folding or telescoping stock
A pistol grip
A bayonet mount
A flash suppressor, or threads to attach one (a flash suppressor reduces the amount of flash that the rifle shot makes. It is the small birdcage-like item on the muzzle of the rifle)
A grenade launcher.
Grenade launchers were already illegal and regulated by the ATF as "Destructive Devices". However, most militaries use an item known as a rifle grenade. This grenade attaches to the muzzle of the rifle and is launched by firing a round (or special blank round) into the base of the grenade. Since civilian flash suppressors were identical in diameter to military flash suppressors, they were capable of using this grenade (although possession of such a grenade is illegal and unlikely). For the purposes of this bill, this made these flash suppressors into "grenade launchers". |
Not exactly.
This is my problem with the reporting of this issue.
The law DID NOT BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS!!!
1. Actual assault weapons are selective fire. The AWB did not affect them, they are regulated by other statutes beginning with the NFA of 1934.
2. The law did not ban the weapons. The AWB banned the new
manufacture of 19 weapons or their look-alikes with certain irrelevant cosmetic features. Existing weapons were not affected by the law. For new manufacture, remove the offending features, legal to manufacture. To have really prohibited the weapons desired by design would have outlawed any semi-auto weapon, to include the Remington 11-87 Kerry was waving around the other day, and your Dad's old Browning Auto-5 and his Remington 742 hunting rifle. How does adding a folding stock, a bayonet lug, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor/grenade launcher make any of these weapons more (or less) lethal?
3. The prohibited manufacture of High-Cap mags did little if anything to prevent crime because the average gunfight uses far less than the 10 rounds permitted. Incidentally, the initial version of the AWB prohibited the manufacture of reproductions of the Henry and other 1860s-70s era lever action rifles, and the tubular magazine fed .22LR auto loaders. Links and belts are also affected, though no one to my knowledge has really figured out how to mark them as post ban manufacture.
4. Credible statistics have shown that few, if any crimes are committed with these weapons (they are not the "weapons of choice" for criminals, or now, terrorists). Stats also show no effect of the AWB on crime. For all of the noise by the Police Organizations, I have yet to hear of a LEO being killed with a banned weapon that could not have been done with another non-AWB weapon or for that matter, a motor vehicle.
5. This was the tip of the iceberg for the gun-banners. Make no mistake, their eventual goal is the banning of ALL privately owned weapons, they just have to eat this elephant one bite at the time.
6. The pols know from the 1994, 1996, 2000, and 2002 elections that many gun owners are single-issue voters, and gun control is another third rail of politics. Most from outside NE and the major cities will only consider it as a rider to other legislation, as they tried to do with the Gun Manufacturer's Protection Bill earlier this year. See, they can vote for gun owners and against them at the same time. The 1986 Firearms Owner's Protection Act did that to automatic weapons.
I have more to say, but think I am probably preaching to the choir here.
Rant off.
TR